Date of filing: 25.05.2022 Date of Disposal: 28.04.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.104/2022
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
Mr. K. Ramakrishna,
S/o. Kurupati Narayanappa,
Aged About 55 years,
Occupation: English Professor,
(in Srinivaspur Government College
Kolar District), R/at: No.370,
-
NGEF Layout, Nagarbhavi,
(Rep by Sri. P.Suresh, Advocate)
B.R.S. Grandeur Convention Centre,
No.60, Vajarahlli, (Byanapalya),
Kanakapur Main Road,
Bangalore-560 109,
Rep. by its proprietor,
(Rep. by Sri. Y.N.Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to return the amount of Rs.4,72,000/- and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
02. It is not in dispute that, the complainant had booked the opposite party convention centre for the marriage of his daughter scheduled to be held on 29.05.2021 and 30.05.2021 and had paid an advance amount of Rs.4,72,000/- by way of cheque and the said amount has been realized by the opposite party and the complainant had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,28,000/- towards other expenses.
03. It is the further case of the complainant that, in the month of May-2021 unfortunately the government had issued a notification about the spreading of COVID-19 and enhanced lock-down and put a restriction on performing of marriages and other functions. Hence the complainant was unable to perform the marriage in the said convention hall and postponed the marriage. In view of the government notification the complainant orally requested the opposite party to refund the amount paid. The opposite party postponed the same on one or the other pretext. Further the complainant was constrained to sent a legal notice through his counsel on 04.03.2022 seeking for refund of the advance amount paid. The opposite party instead of refunding the same gave an untenable reply dated: 04.04.2022. Hence the complaint came to be filed.
04. It is the further case of the opposite party that, the complainant did not mention or instruct the opposite party either orally or in writing prior to 29.05.2021 stating that, they were not interested in performing the wedding ceremony in the convention hall belongs to opposite party. Further there was no restriction as on 29.05.2021 by the Government of Karnataka as alleged by the complainant with regard to conducting of the marriages. Further as per Part B(1) of the receipt, the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.
05. To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.5 documents. The proprietor of opposite party (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.1 document.
06. Counsels for both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.
07. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
relief sought ?
(3) What order ?
08. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1 : In affirmative
POINT NO.2 : Partly in affirmative
POINT NO.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
09. POINT NO.1:- The complainant (PW.1) and opposite party (RW.1) have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.
10. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that, there was no restriction on 29.05.2021 for conducting of marriage. The complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the order issued by the Commissioner of police and Additional District Magistrate, Bangalore City, on 27.04.2021. In which it is stated that, to break the chain of COVID-19 transmission in the state of Karnataka including Bangalore City the restrictions would remain in-force from 09.00 PM of 27.04.2021 to 06.00 AM of 12.05.2021. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, the said order has been extended from time to time. The opposite party did not produce any document to substantiate that, the restriction was lifted on 29.05.2021. Hence there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party.
11. It is the further contention of the opposite party that, the complainant did not inform prior to 29.05.2021 stating that, they were not interested in performing the wedding ceremony in the convention centre on the schedule date. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, in the month of May-2021 unfortunately the Government had issued notification.
12. On perusal of the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka dated: 13.06.2021 in No. RD 158 TNR 2020 it appears that, the government has issued a clarification that, the production units/establishments/industries are permitted to function with the 50% of their staff strength strictly adhering to COVID-19 behaviour likewise several notifications were issued restricting the movement of the public. Hence there was no free movement of the people and conducting of functions were prohibited. Hence since the notifications were issued often, question of prior intimation to the opposite party does not arise.
13. Admittedly the marriage has not been performed at opposite party’s convention hall and that too it was not on the default of the complainant and because of act of God. Hence the complainant cannot be blamed. Further the notification has also been issued by the BBMP that, the amount collected during the COVID-19 period as advance by the marriage Choultery hall and function centres shall be returned by deducting 5% of the amount. Even in-spite of notice been issued by the complainant on 04.03.2022 vide EX.P.3 the opposite party gave untenable reply on 04.04.2022 vide EX.P.4 demanding for the payment of the balance amount. We feel the opposite party ought to have returned the amount. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly we answer this point in affirmative.
14. POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.4,72,000/-. Admittedly the said amount has been paid by the complainant. The Government of Karnataka had issued a circular in No. CR-01/2019-2020, dated: 10.06.2020 stating that, since lock-down period has been extended the owner of the marriage Choultery shall return the advance amount taken by deducting 5% tax. Hence, in compliance of the said circular the complainant is entitle for the refund of Rs.4,79,000/- by deducting 5% of the same which comes to Rs.4,55,050/-.
15. Further the complainant claimed bank interest on the said amount. We feel the complainant is entitle for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount from 30.05.2021 till realization.
16. Further the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. We feel it is not the case that, because of the mistake of the opposite party the function was not performed. Hence only because of the delay in returning the amount the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation. Further the act of opposite party made the complainant to get issued the legal notice and to approach this Commission. Hence the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. Accordingly we answer this Point partly in affirmative.
17. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part.
The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,55,050/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 30.05.2021 till realization and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 28th Day of April, 2023)
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
Sri.K. Ramakrishna, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents marked for the complainant side:
- Advance receipt dt.25.12.2020 – EX.P.1.
- Copy of statement of account – EX.P.2
- Office copy of legal notice dt.04.03.2022 with postal receipt & acknowledgment – EX.P.3.
- Reply notice dt.04.04.2022 – EX.P.4
- Paper cutting of Times of India dt.10.02.2022 – EX.P.5.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Sri. Manohar, Proprietor of opposite party (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:
1. Original booking receipt dt.25.11.2020 – EX.R.1.
